- The Talmud specifies gom'rim [completing in Ivrit and learning in Aramaic] Hallel on 18 occasions in Israel and 21 in the diaspora
- As such saying Hallel on Rosh Hodesh is not to be completed
- Ergo say Sephardim say it sans a Bracha
- Now the Talmud notes this was a minhag encountered in Bavel by Rav
- And Rashi rejects a bracha on a minhag
- Rabbeinu Tam says that Minhag Triggers a Brachah; e.g. 2nd day of Yom Tov
- However all of the Above are dancing around the philological correct read of the text
- The Talmud above also Specifies YACHID - meaning the limitation of bracha to 18/21 is itself limited to
an individual - The Braitto referred to above does not address a tzibbur or perhaps even a pair
- Thus Rema states that in absence of a Minyan find at least one other person to respond to the Hallel on Rosh Hodesh in order to comply with the letter of the law.
- The Shulchan Aruch Harav and the Aruch Hashulchan both recommend a compromise: Viz. have the Sheliach Tzibbur say the bracha on behalf of the tzibbur.
- This minimizes the quantity of Brachot
- AND it demonstrates the Tzibbur aspect to the exclusion of the individual
KT
RRW
2 comments:
Does Sephardim saying "ligmor et ha Hallel" vs. Ashkenazi "likroat [likroyis] ha Hallel" have any significance for this? That's another point often made by R. Yuter.
The Shibolei Haleqet as quoted by Bet Yosef states:
The term ligmor is ambiguous
its hebrew meaning is to "complete"
its Aramaic meaning is to "learn"
The Yuteritic thesis is circular in its reasoning:
if the term Ligmor meatns :to Complete
Then you MUST have a pre-Existing case of incompletion! Otherwise the term is senseless!
Thus, The bracha LIGMOR - should it mean to complete - MUST be after the minhag to read an incomplete Hallel was Established in a significant way!
On the other hand if it means to learn then the Hallel is READ as Mikra but also learned. hence the Ashknenazic emendation to remove the ambiguity. since we typically do not LEARN Miqra it is better to swap the term back to Liqro.
If Ligmor meaning to complete does indeed factor in the minhag to read an incomplete Hallel it stronglysuggests a VERY late establishment of the Blessic - probably Saboraic-Gaonic instead of Amoraic. Rabbi Yuter would be probably uncomfortable with this read.
So mah nafshach: if the bracha is early the Ashkenazi Read is correct viz. to learn. If it indeed means to complete then the Brachah is most likely Post-Talmudic
This of course in no way directly addresses your question!
Zissen Pesach
RRW
Post a Comment